Does KDE really need QT?

Linux Discussion
1

Does KDE really need QT?

So the advantage with Qt is that it makes it very easy to port apps over to Windows or Mac. The disadvantage with Qt is that it creates confusion over licensing when the main library it uses is proprietary.

How can you make the claim that KDE is GPL when the main library it uses is not?
Sorry if I am wrong here, but it just goes to show that I am as confused about this as others.

So my question is how hard would it be for KDE to skip the whole Qt thing completely and port their libraries directly onto Vulkan? Even if you needed to create a new middle layer that would interact with KWin.
Look there is a K in there so Vulkan is obviously a KDE thing.

The libraries themselves would still be coded in C, or is it C++, that KDE uses?

I am aware that this would be a massive project and could take ages… but thought bubble here. :slight_smile:

2

Nowadays qt is not less open than gtk if I’m not mistaken.
Both are LGPL as far as I know.
At least in as far as KDE is concerned.

It’s just that if you don’t want to use GPL/LGPL you have the option to get a commercial license.
That however doesn’t make LGPL’ed qt less open.

1 Like
3

Answered in one.

There is actually no confusion if people care to read the easily available documentation.

Qt is Free, Libre, and Open Source Software licensed under the LGPL. Just like anything else which uses the LGPL.